The 38 Year-Old Man’s Lament in Springtime

In class today, we briefly mentioned the question of whether or not an author must claim some sort of authenticity or entitlement before writing of a certain experience or in a certain voice. Although there’s probably a good case to be made in either direction, it’s worth pointing out that values of “authenticity” in examining a work have oscillated over time, and continue to vary according to place. Several nations’ literary traditions originated in myth and allegory, while others have long exalted personal narrative over fiction. It seems to me that contemporary America often criticizes authors for being insincere. In the world of Wikipedia and Google, writers are no longer shrouded in mystery. We are no longer subject only to that personal information which they wish to divulge. And if we find that an author has been exploring topics (especially tragedies) he or she has not personally experienced, we tend to think of that as “exploitation.” So I’m curious how you all feel about the great William Carlos Williams’ “The Widow’s Lament in Springtime.” Even in 1921, a few years before the Facebook era, Williams’ name would have been proudly displayed on a byline and there would have been no ambiguity as to his gender- this poem is clearly fiction. It is clearly written from a narrative voice that does not belong to the author. It contains pain the author cannot possibly understand. We are reading about the unique and internal suffering of a denomination of people under which the author cannot be classified.

So is this “okay?” Is Williams reaching out a hand in empathy but revealing ignorance? What if he wrote a poem about the “black” experience or the “gay” experience or the “Japanese” experience? Is he entitled to adopt these voices, or is it reductive of the experiences of the people they represent?

Personally, I think it’s more than “okay” for an author to try and represent the lives he or she hasn’t lived firsthand. In fact, I find it a rather noble (if dangerous) pursuit and often prefer to sense distance between an author and his topic than to be thrust head first into a writer’s life story. There is of course a way to tactfully approach these things, and I’ll certainly acknowledge that many authors use a foreign, minority or subjugated voice to wring pathos out of otherwise tepid writing. But in Williams’ case, I feel as though impersonal voices allow him to open up to an emotional landscape he would otherwise avoid. He certainly doesn’t have the heart-on-a-sleeve frankness of a Mina Loy, but he isn’t a snobby intellectual, either. If his poems are any indication, he’s deeply concerned with human feelings, particularly those of other people. And I think that his curiosity was probably his strongest muse.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in William Carlos Williams. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The 38 Year-Old Man’s Lament in Springtime

  1. jnikol12 says:

    Curiosity may well have been Williams’ driving force. He may even have had a number of personas or alternate personalities through which he was better able to express himself. When considering his biography, this poet may have felt limited in his ability to express himself because his sexuality and maybe some other reasons we’re not aware of. Using an alternative voice is his way of, like you mentioned, saying what he otherwise wouldn’t find the words to say. The reason his poetry isn’t “wringing out” any pathos is because it doesn’t try to guess too much at the specifics of being a certain woman with certain feelings and experiences that are foreign to WCW. He simply uses a widow as a puppet to express more broad emotions that he can actually relate to in some less literal way. This way, his poetry doesn’t seem pretentious or glib. It’s very sincere because the poet doesn’t assume very much.

  2. dmsda says:

    I can not offer a new theory to the discussion but here are some things to think about:
    Once factor contributing to the reader’s need to authenticate the author is modern society’s incessant desire to find some sort of “truth” in literature. This most likely stems from academic writings in which the accuracy of a statement is dependent upon a person’s legitimacy. This legitimacy is based on a specific canon of qualifications. Thus, self-identity does not always equate “truthfulness.”
    Also, a biography as a basis for an interpretation of a work is somewhat limiting. One can not document accurately every factual and or emotional experience of someone’s life. Therefore, who is to say that an author lacks specific knowledge of anything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s